How can we test the many-worlds interpretation?

Quantum immortality is more than just wrong.
It violates basic logic.

How does it violate logic?

So you just don't like determinism?

Certain states equal certain death and have no quantum loophole which don't involve aliens or spontaneous teleportation.
You can avoid those states through but things start to break down at some point since human's aren't supposed to live forever nor is what makes you yourself tied to your pulse.

So it doesn't violate logic

It violates it's own name at the very least.
Call it quantum longevity in certain timelines where death is not certain.

You prove MWI to yourself but no one else. It's still useless.

... and even then you don't really prove anything. It would be like playing dice and rolling 4,000 sixes in a row or something and then claiming you're the God of Dice. All you'll have a achieved is killing yourself in millions of different timelines and having a bunch of scientists write your results off as a fluke.

Only to yourself. From your perspective you would commit suicide and fail each time. Unfortunately after the first one or two times you will wake up with brain damage and live your the remainder of life out in the "user becomes retarded" universe.

Why would i become brain damaged?

>How can we test the many-worlds interpretation?

maybe you could relate something like the Planck time to the rate of the bifurcation of worldlines and then somehow obtain a prediction for the rate of decoherence of quantum states. This builds on the idea that decoherence on one worldline is an effect related a single pure state having a potential future on many worldlines. Since there are probably infinity potential worldlines we might associate this with the continuous decoherence effects derived from Schrodinger's heat equation when all of the other relevant things are quantized.

Attached: minkowski.png (717x733, 60K)

What?

That's easy, just go to the world where you figured out how to test it and kill and replace that version of yourself.

go faster than light

I was saying that due to Planck scale effects, it might be possible to determine a "refresh rate" for the how often a universe's worldline splits into "many worlds." Then I further conjectured that quantum decoherence of pure states into mixed states might be described as an effect derived from the splitting of the state's worldline into many worlds.

Since the Schrodinger equation is a heat equation it describes continuous phenomena, there is nothing quantum about it. However, I also went so far as to speculate that since each worldline is likely to split into infinity different worlds at each splitting (bifurcation) then we might recover the continuum of heat-like diffusion in the probability density from the infinitely dense "many wolrds" on the far side of each splitting.

The question was "How can we test the many-worlds interpretation?" and in my post (and this one too) I suggested a few things that might be strung together to derive an observable prediction for the rate of coherence of quantum states. Obviously I do make the prediction, but I was saying that if someone gave me a grant to test MWI then this would be my avenue of attack.

Attached: Map177.png (1024x5032, 248K)

you're hired!

quantum decoherence is an effect of outside forces. Are you saying if we could make a totally closed system, and still observe decoherence, then we'd have proved many worlds?

No.

I was saying perhaps it would be possible to determine a "refresh rate" at which the universe splits into "many worlds." From that it might be further possible to predict the rate of decoherence of any old generic or exotic quantum system in which decoherence effects can be observed.

You know, hopefully, that repeated measurements prevent decoherence, and the prediction which I suggest would be for how fast decoherence creeps in after a measurement.

If you could say, "My many worlds model predicts X refresh rate, and from that I infer that decoherence of Y system should happen Z fast," then that could answer the question: "How can we test the many-worlds interpretation?"

Attached: 2universes.png (1228x505, 333K)

>quantum decoherence is an effect of outside forces.
not sure what you mean by this. decoherence is intrinsic to the Schrodinger equation even when V=0.

Attached: stress_tensor_cartesian.png (370x326, 33K)

>how fast decoherence creeps in after a measurement.

which we'd determine by... not measuring it?

I'm not sure you fully understand quantum mechanics.

>decoherence is intrinsic to the Schrodinger equation even when V=0.
this is flat out false

You would adjust the time between measurements. If you measure spin up over and over, and then slow down the measurement process and get spin down then you can build up decoherence statistics in that way, duh

>this is flat out false
You're fucking retarded.

Wow, you really fail to grasp even the basics of quantum mechanics.

> If you measure spin up over and over, and then slow down the measurement process and get spin down
So how exactly does the spin up particle turn into spin down? Protip: it doesn't, unless the system isn't closed.

Please, tell me, how do you find the time dependence of a quantum state? I seriously doubt you would be saying half the things you're saying if you knew any basic QM.

Assuming you actually make a fair attempt at killing yourself, after enough failed attempts that could plausibly have succeeded, you're bound to end up permanently injured in some form. You could possibly reach a point where you die for a few minutes before being resuscitated that can will result in some permanent brain damage.

Don't get ahead of yourself dumbass. You said the decoherence will not happen when V=0. Do you admit you were wrong? If so I will answer your questions. If not, then you are the one who fails to grasp even the basics of classical mechanics.

>doesn't understand what heat equations do
>complains about me not understanding quantum mechanics

I like how you failed to answer my very simple question. This is pretty pitiful, would you like me to help you understand states as a linear combination of eigenstates of the hamiltonian, so you can understand why you're wrong? Unfortunately it will probably go over your head, but it might be worth a shot.

>You said the decoherence will not happen when V=0. Do you admit you were wrong?
why the fuck would I? I was right. The only thing that can cause decoherence is a change in V. Which would be fucking obvious if you even knew what a eigenfunction was.

>I was right.
nah
you weren't

"The Lord's" argument: nah you weren't

My argument: All coherent states are gaussians, usually as a function of being in a well that behaves as a simple harmonic oscillator. Free particles(with V=0) are classical sin waves, therefore decoherence can't occur because they couldn't have been COHERENT IN THE FIRST PLACE

see how stupid you sound now?

>argument
I see you fail to grasp the fundamentals of rhetoric as well.

>Free particles(with V=0) are classical sin waves
wrong again.
they are plane waves.

Attached: TRINITY___kjomodcowmeo35.png (612x423, 38K)

>I see you fail to grasp the fundamentals of rhetoric as well.
wrong
I don't NEED rhetoric, son.

Ae^(ikx-iwt)
A(cos(kx-wt)+isin(kx-wt))
A(sin(kx-wt+[pi]/2)+isin(kx-wt))
why can't I holds all these SINs

>Ae^(ikx-iwt)
>A(cos(kx-wt)+isin(kx-wt))
>A(sin(kx-wt+[pi]/2)+isin(kx-wt))

I agree that a plane wave is not a classical sine wave.

Attached: TRINITY___+_kdddmmoukjodsmodcowmeo35.png (741x162, 10K)

>a sin wave is not a sin wave because it has an amplitude

Attached: 1519134466886.png (586x578, 37K)

>A(sin(kx-wt+[pi]/2)+isin(kx-wt))
so this is a gaussian to you then?

>doesn't understand heat equation
>tries to change the subject

>doesn't understand heat equation
>doesn't understand any other equations either

Here ya go though since you seem keen on my nuts: it's a book I wrote that says lots of what I know about physics. My research is in the fundamentals of physics. A lot of people will say that their research in the fundamentals of quantum field theory is research into the fundamentals of physics, and it kind of is, but as a matter of fact QFT is one of the most advanced aspects of physics.

However, the heat equation which you do not understand, is from classical mechanics, and that is the bare assed bottom of the fundamentals. Maybe go to Khan academy or something before you have a crack at my opus, modest as it is with regards to the most advanced (a.k.a. complicated) stuff.

>The General Relevance of the Modified Cosmological Model
MIRROR 1: vixra.org/abs/1712.0598
MIRROR 2: 2occatl.net/1712.0598v2.pdf
MIRROR 3: drive.google.com/file/d/1sXrFZhMo9OjoauL0SgAvpSxD_8qaAYi0/view?usp=sharing

Attached: unitcell2.png (668x509, 219K)

not clicking any of those links

Attached: 6ff0tc2abecx[1].jpg (625x783, 43K)

On The Heat Equation
by Jonathan Tooker

Let there be a free 1D particle (V=0) between x=1 and x=2. Write down the wavefunction. Turn the crank on Schodinger's equation. Is the particle still between x=1 and x=2 with 100% probability? Fuck no it isn't. The thing that changed the answer at the beginning (fuck yeah) to the answer at the end (fuck no) is called decoherence. Decoherence is intrinsic to the Schrodinger equation.

(a wave function must be continuous up to it's first partial derivatives)
(a wave that is free to the left of the boundary and 0 to the right of the boundary (so, an infinite well) must either be discontinous or have discontinuous first derivatives and therefore can't be represented mathematicially(and is therefore also likely impossible to find in nature))
(protip: you aren't fooling anyone with a degree)

also, what the fuck does this have to do with the heat equation.

The heat equation can be discontinuous at t=0(such as going to 0 at the boundary) but then is continuous at t>0 as the sharp corners immediately round out to a small degree and jumps become very steep dips.

I think you might have been on to something, sadly you are just very uneducated. It is interesting to note that exponentials (such as the gaussian) satisfies the heat eq and wave eq but e^iw (aka a sine wave dipshit) only satisfies wave equation.

>many-worlds interpretation
Every time I hear someone taking this serious I cringe a little. It is because of this that now every story needs to be a "multiverse with alternative realities, uhhhh, sciency!!" Now writers are lazy and every time they fuck up they can just say that it was an alternative reality and that it is ok

That would imply that, from a scientific pint of view, freedom exists. Which it does not

>worries why electron goes left or right
>doesn't worry when universes pop up left and right

if this isn't religion, nothing is

cringe

>That would imply that, from a scientific pint of view, freedom exists. Which it does not
No it doesn't.

You must find the very limits of this universe.
Obviously, magic as a 'real' force does not exist in this reality however under many worlds interpretation it certainly must, due to "The Wizard" thought experiment.

If many worlds is true in its fullest sense. Magic in some of those worlds MUST be real.

Those worlds that are chaotic and brief MUST be excluded for they are out of reach unless some greater force intervenes and slams them into another universe, etc etc. Unless, more terrifyingly the are just drifting around chaotically.

So in this regard, it is logical that there must be some sort of order between, for example, an expert magician in a viable universes world and our own.
Imagine him creating a portal to another universe through difficult spells and rituals and one of our best scientists creating a portal to their world through, let's propose...some large contraption that is built to rip open space-time.
However this would imply that the power ratio is different. For the magician it is easier to interact with a lower energy dimension because to him the exchange of a few words is enough to bust open the gate, whereas the scientist would have to gather Dyson spheres worth of energy and mega structures in order to barely contact their world. If it is real, and this proves to be the case perhaps something is holding the worlds separate. Maybe for a good reason.

Science is this worlds fundamental truth and math its ever lasting broker. All we have are waves and tools to test our abilities.

You must find the very limits of this worlds durability and bend it, or break it, safely, to observe phenomena that may aid our understanding of it.

Be damned how hard that will be.

However it is your best bet for discovering how this universe operates and whether or not "Many Worlds Interpretation holds any bearing in reality.

Test the limits of our scientific prowess and what we can achieve as a species and beyond.

"No is doesn't" as in you are negating my argument or as in negating the existence of freedom?

This is honestly my view

You can see if spontaneous collapse is correct. That would rule out Everett many-worlds. Testing spontaneous collapse models is very hard, but maybe possible in the near future, according to some common variants of spontaneous collapse models.